tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 29 11:21:36 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: jIlIH'eghqa'
>Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
>From: [email protected] (Matthew M Whiteacre)
>
>
>On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 19:37:16 -0700 (PDT) "Mark E. Shoulson"
><[email protected]> writes:
>>>> >wa'maH wa' ben, chorgh ben, jav ben je bogh puqbe'wI'.
>>>>
>But
>>your original sentence is even more original, since there's a
>"respectively" implied
>>somewhere there.
>>
>>~mark
>>
>I really don't see a "respectively" in the original statement. All I
>meant to say is:
>
>"My daughters are 11, 8, and 6 years old."
>
>If I had said "My daughters, Monica, Sylvia, and Alicia and 11, 8, and 6
>years old" there is an implied "respectively. Maybe my English
>monolingualism (is this a word?) is showing.
Hmm. Initially I wrote you were right, but I think there really is
something VERY close to a "respectively" at work here. When you say your
daughers are 11, 8, and 6 years old, you plainly aren't talking about them
collectively. You're talking about each one individually, with the 11
years old applying to one, the 8 to another, and the 6 to a third. You've
grouped them into "my daughters," but your descriptions are still about
them respectively. Come to think of it, I probably WOULD say "My daughters
are 11, 8, and 6 years old respectively," even without listing the names
(assuming I had daughters, and they were 11, 8, and 6 years old
respectively).
~mark